Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting.

Abstract

In this monograph we describe a unique method for resolving scientific disputes: the joint design of by the antagonists themselves with the help of a mediator. This method was applied to the issue of the effect of participation on goal commitment and performance. In research on this topic, Latham and his colleagues had obtained markedly different results from those obtained by Erez and her colleagues. With Locke serving as a third party mediator, Latham and Erez designed four to resolve the discrepancies. The were conducted at the University of Washington and the University of Maryland. The results revealed that the major reason for the difference was that Erez gave very brief tell instructions to her assigned goal subjects, whereas Latham used a tell and sell approach. Four additional factors also contributed to the earlier difference in findings: goal difficulty, setting personal goals before goal treatments were introduced, self-efficacyinducing instructions, and instructions to reject disliked goals. It was concluded that (a) the differences between Latham and Erez can be explained on the basis of differences in specific procedures, and (b) the method used to resolve this dispute should be used by other investigators. In this monograph we present a method of resolving scientific disputes that may be unique in the history of psychology, and we demonstrate its application to a current scientific dispute. The method involved the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists, using a third party as a mediator. Typically, when there are disagreements regarding a certain finding or relationship in science, the disputants attack one another in the literature. Each may claim that the other used a flawed procedure, an invalid design, inappropriate analyses, or that the findings were valid but misinterpreted. The rest of the scientific community then lines up on either side (or in the middle).

Cites (45)

1. Harvard Business Review
   Armstrong, J.Scott, Georgoff, David M. · 1988 · International Journal of Forecasting
2. Untitled work
   1938 · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa)
3. Field Theory in Social Science
   French, Robert L., Lewin, Kurt, Cartwright, Dorwin · 1953 · The American Journal of Psychology
4. Overcoming Resistance to Change
   Coch, Lester, French, John R. P. · 1948 · Human Relations
5. Goal setting—A motivational technique that works
   Latham, Gary P., Locke, Edwin A. · 1979 · Organizational Dynamics
6. Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance.
   Locke, Edwin A., Frederick, Elizabeth, Lee, Cynthia, Bobko, Philip · 1984 · Journal of Applied Psychology
7. PARTICIPATION, SATISFACTION, AND PRODUCTIVITY: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW.
   Miller, K. I., Monge, P. R. · 1986 · Academy of Management Journal
8. New Directions in Organizational Behavior.
   Beyer, Janice M., Staw, Barry M., Salancik, Gerald R. · 1978 · Administrative Science Quarterly
9. The Determinants of Goal Commitment
   Locke, Edwin A., Latham, Gary P., Erez, Miriam · 1988 · The Academy of Management Review
10. Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings.
    Saxton, Stanley L., Locke, Edwin A. · 1987 · Contemporary Sociology

Show all 45 references

Cited by (26)

1. Self‐determination theory and work motivation
   Gagné, Marylène, Deci, Edward L. · 2005 · Journal of Organizational Behavior
2. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
   Locke, Edwin A., Latham, Gary P. · 2002 · American Psychologist
3. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
   2019
4. Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content.
   Austin, James T., Vancouver, Jeffrey B. · 1996 · Psychological Bulletin
5. The dynamics of proactivity at work
   Grant, Adam M., Ashford, Susan J. · 2008 · Research in Organizational Behavior

See all 363